ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2017
Contribution of point sources and non-point sources to nutrient and carbon loads and their influence on the trophic status of the Ganga River at Varanasi, India.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collateral implications of carbon and metal pollution on carbon dioxide emission at land-water interface of the Ganga River.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- Assessment of non-point source of pollution using chemical mass balance approach: a case study of River Alaknanda, a tributary of River Ganga, India.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
- Nutrient and microbial water quality of the upper Ganga River, India: identification of pollution sources.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2020Article
- Assessment of heavy metal pollution in water and surface sediment and evaluation of ecological risks associated with sediment contamination in the Ganga River: a basin-scale study.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To determine the possible contributions of point and non-point sources to carbon and nutrient loading in the Ganga River, we analyzed N, P, and organic carbon (OC) in the atmospheric deposits, surface runoff, and in the river along a 37-km stretch from 2013 to 2015. We also assessed the trophic status of the river as influenced by such sources of nutrient input. Although the river N, P, and productivity showed a declining trend with increasing discharge, runoff DOC and dissolved reactive phosphorus (DRP) increased by 88.05 and 122.7% between the Adpr and Rjht sites, indicating contributions from atmospheric deposition (AD) coupled with land use where agriculture appeared to be the major contributor. Point source input led to increased river concentrations of NO
Indexed as
Identifiers
28849425What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.